1

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 1968

Kinship
I. INTRODUCTION
Kinship is one of the universals in human society and therefore plays an important role in both the regulation
of behavior and the formation of social groups. Kinship systems depend on the social recognition and cultural
implementation of relationships derived from descent and marriage and normally involve a set of kinship
terms and an associatedn set of behavioral patterns and attitudes which, together, make up a systematic
whole. All societies distinguish various categories of relation-ship by descent or consanguinity, and most
societies distinguish relationships by marriage or affinity as well. Although dictionary definitions differentiate
these relationships, it is convenient to extend the term kinship to cover both kinds. The resulting network of
social relations may constitute almost the whole social structure in some of the simpler societies or be a
relatively small part of a highly complex structure, as in modern industrial societies. In either case, however,
the system of kin-ship and marriage plays an important role in maintaining group cohesion and solidarity and
in orienting the individual members to the social maze. The use of the term system implies that there is a
complex relation of interdependence between the component parts: the social categories and the associated
rights and duties.
Kinship systems are found to vary in different societies with respect to a number of characteristics: (1) the
extent to which genealogical and affinal relationships are recognized for social purposes; (2) the ways in
which relatives so recognized are classified or grouped in social categories; (3) the particular customs by
which the behavior of these relatives is regulated in daily life; (4) the various rights and obligations which are
mediated through kinship; and (5) the linguistic forms which are used to denote the various categories of kin.
Often the domain of kinship is clearly marked off, but there are frequently metaphorical and other extensions
which result in related systems or subsystems. [SeeKinship, articles onDescent Groups and Pseudo-kinship.]
The near universality of the nuclear or elementary family and its role in mating and reproduction have made it
a focus for studies of kinship. Here are found the primary relationships of parent and child, husband and
wife, and brothers and sisters, and it is possible to construct a network of genealogical relationships
encompassing the whole society by extension from this nucleus. But the processes of mating and
reproduction are regulated in all human societies by incest rules and social convention, and although the
resulting domestic family group is often based on physiological parenthood, it is the social recognition of
parenthood that provides a child with a legitimate position in society. Thus, it is often convenient to
distinguish the pater,or social father, from the genitor, or physical father, and sometimes it may even be
necessary to distinguish the culturally assumed genitor from the actual biological father. Moreover, in some
African societies women may play the role of social fathers, marrying and begetting children with the aid
of a biological father.
The family of orientation into which a child is born is often part of a larger extended family which includes
many additional relatives. When an individual marries, he and his spouse may establish a new family of
procreation or may join a larger family structure. Normally he acquires a new set of relatives by marriage, but
in those cases where marriage is specified in terms of a particular category of relatives, his affinal relations
may also be his consanguineal ones. In a few instances, as among the eighteenth-century Nayar of southern
India, the family of husband, wife, and children did not exist as a social unit, and kinship was correspondingly
modified. These examples indicate that the kinship system may or may not coincide with the genealogical
network; in every case, the degree of relationship is a matter for empirical investigation.
The kinship categories found in various societies often cut across the distinctions that seem logical in EuroAmerican societies. In the latter, lineal relatives are set off from the collateral uncles and aunts, and the
relatives through the father and the mother are treated in parallel fashion. But in many societies throughout
the world the terms for father, mother, brother, sister, and so on may be widely extended instead of being
restricted to the immediate family group. In some cases the extension is by generation, the term for father
being extended to his brothers and male cousins as far as genea-logical relatives are remembered, and
analogously for other relatives. In other cases the extensions may be vertical, in terms of unilineal descent
groups, so that all the members of a particular lineage or clan may be classed as fathers and fathers
sisters, or mothers and mothers brothers, regardless of generation or even of genealogical connection.
The resulting kinship systems often have a wide range, sometimes encompassing the entire social group, in
contrast to the narrow range of many Western systems. The particular patterns of grouping kinsmen show

2
considerable variety, and each must be understood in its own terms before it can be compared with systems
based on other principles of grouping.
The patterns of behavior that prevail between relatives define their relationships and as such are an integral
part of the kinship system. In almost all societies the family is responsible for the care and support of
children during their period of dependency and for their education and training for adult life. These tasks
involve both love and affection and authority and discipline. The potential conflicts and ambivalences are
often resolved by the allocation of authority to one parent or the other or to some relative outside the
immediate family. The relationships established in the family group are affected by generation and relative
age and by similarities or differences of sex. Those members of the parental generation who are in a position
of authority are entitled to obedience and respect; others may share an intimacy without subordination.
Friendship and support are expected of brothers and sisters, although often there are restrictions on
behavior between a brother and a sister after puberty. With relatives outside the family group there is
frequently a greater variety of behavior patterns, some seemingly based on the model of relationships within
the family but others representing obligatory joking or teasing, on the one hand, or extreme respect or
avoidance, on the other.
During the long period of socialization within the family or domestic group, the child gradually learns the
proper attitudes and behavior patterns toward his various relatives. These patterns are present in the society
in terms of cultural ideals and as behavioral norms, and their observance is reinforced in a variety of ways.
There is considerable evidence that in most societies children learn the essentials of kinship rather early. At
marriage an individual normally acquires a whole new set of affinal relatives to whom he must make varying
adjustments, depending on the patterns of residence and interaction. Marriage is frequently an alliance
between two groups of kin and may be mediated by exchanges of property as well as of spouses. The
individuals relation to his spouses relatives is often an intensification of the attitudes of respect or familiarity
he has toward his own parents and siblings. Thus he may avoid his mother-in-law for a period and may be
required to joke roughly with his brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. Some societies prescribe marriage with a
particular category of kin, usually cross-cousins (children of a brother and a sister), so that ones new
affines are also consanguineal relatives and the new behavioral adjustments are more easily handled. Such
societies intensify the bonds between existing relatives at the expense of securing a new set of relatives by
means of marriage. In these societies the opposition between consanguinity and affinity is often present,
despite the formal absence of distinct affinal terms.
In most societies the rights and obligations of members are channeled, in part at least, through the kinship
system. Thus, the right to membership in a descent group may depend on the proper marriage of the
parents, in which the procreative rights in the wife have been formally transferred to the husband and his
lineage. Similarly, rights to the utilization of land or other kinds of property may sometimes be secured only
through member-ship in corporate descent groups which are both integral parts of the kinship system and
units in the larger social structure. Succession to various offices or status positions usually depends on kinship, even though the offices are controlled by descent groups or associations. Even the rights to residence
in one locality or another may be specified in kinship terms. Rights normally imply obligations or duties and
are concerned with the larger society and its continuation, even though phrased in kinship terms. Many
center on marriage and the resulting family and involve domestic service, labor, sexuality, procreation, and
support, among other things. Where rights and duties are codified in legal or jural terms they are more easily
seen, but they are an integral part of kinship behavior.
In all societies, kinship is marked by a set of relationship terms that define the universe of kin and that may
be extended metaphorically to nonkin and even to various aspects of the world of nature. Kinship terms have
been the center of much interest on the part of both anthropologists and linguists, and considerable progress
has been made in their classification and analysis. In most societies, kinship terms are utilized in daily life,
both in reference and in direct address, and often their use is required by custom. The terminological system
frequently represents a distinctive subset of the lexicon, and the linguist can provide greater understanding of
it by componential analysis, formal analysis, and historical reconstruction of earlier forms. There is a basic
logic to kinship terminology, in that particular terms do not imply a status position so much as a relationship:
the use of a particular term implies its reciprocal. Thus, if you call a man father, he responds with son. On
the other hand, parallel terms in different societies may or may not have the same significance or meaning.
Social anthropologists have been more concerned with the set of behavioral patterns between relatives and
have tended to consider the terms used as linguistic tags representing or symbolizing the particular expected

3
behaviors and attitudes between pairs or groups of kin. But the two systems are not always in a one-to-one
relationship, and it is more profitable scientifically to consider them in a relationship of dynamic
interdependence and to examine the discrepancies as possible evidence for social and cultural change.
The kinship system, in turn, has various and complex relations with the other social institutions that together
make up the total social system, or social structure. Because kinship enters into economic, political, legal,
and ritual relationships in various societies, there is sometimes a tendency to ignore or underestimate its
significance. The function of kinship terminology in interaction is a symbolic one. Whenit is used it defines for
the participants the general mode of behavior to be followed in particular social situations. The universality
andenduring character of kinship suggest its importance in binding men and women together in society and
providing a foundation for the building of more specific social structures.

Historical development
The scientific study of kinship systems is only a century old, but in that brief period it has engendered more
controversy and a greater variety of theoretical formulations than have most aspects of human society. The
early studies concentrated on the terminological systems, for the most part, and utilized them as evidence for
historical relationships or as survivals of assumed earlier stages of society based on promiscuity and group
marriage. The reactions against such conjectural history led to a denial of the sociological significance of
kinship terms and to an attempted explanation in terms ofpsychological principles. This, in turn, resulted in a
renewed attempt to understand kin-ship in terms of the behavioral system and with reference to the ongoing
society. More recently, some progress has been made in studying changes in kinship systems over time.
One recurring difficulty has been the limited number of societies for which there is adequate information on
kinship systems, but this situation is improving rather rapidly. A further difficulty has been that the preliminary
classifications have been based on limited criteria, and there has been a tendency to study kinship
piecemeal and to search for simplified formulations in terms of causal relationships rather than to treat the
complex whole.
The foundations for the study of kinship were laid by L. H. Morgan in his Systems of Consanguinity and
Affinity of the Human Family(1871). [See the biography ofMORGAN, LEWIS HENRY.] In this work, the result
of more than a decade of concentration on kinship, Morganassembled data on the terminological systems he
was able to collect or secure for nearly every major area of the world. He grouped the terminologies into two
great classes, the descriptive systems, which he ascribed to the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralic linguistic
families, and the classificatory systems, which he thought were characteristic of the American Indians, the
Polynesians, and many of the peoples of Asia. The classificatory systems merged lineal with collateral
relatives in varying degrees, in contrast to the Euro-American systems, which isolated lineal relatives in
theterminology. As W. H. R. Rivers noted later (1914, p. 4), no discoveryin the whole range of science can
more certainly be credited to one man than the discovery of the classificatory system of relationship to
Morgan.
Morgans early interest in kinship systems was a historical one. Discovering in 1858 that the Ojibwa Indians
had a pattern of grouping relatives that was almost identical with that of the Iroquois, who spoke a quite
different language, he came to the view that kinship patterns were highly stable and set out to collect kinship
terminologies in order to demonstrate that the American Indians were of common descent and had originally
come from Asia. When he found an almost identical system among the Tamils of India, he felt he had proved
his historical hypothesis. But in the meantime, the discovery of the Hawaiian (Malayan) pattern of
terminology, which was classificatory to an even greater degree, led him to explain it as a result of assumed
earlier forms of marriage for which there was no existing evidence. The resultin evolutionary development of
social institutions and cultural stages presented in Ancient Society (1877) aroused extended
controversieswhich long obscured Morgans important contributions to the study of kinship.
In America, the criticisms by Kroeber in his Classificatory Systems of Relationship (1909) were the most
influential and far-reaching [seeKroeber]. He found the distinction between descriptive and classificatory
misleading and suggested that kinship terminology be analyzed, instead, in terms of some eight
psychological principles based on the difference of generations, the distinction of lineal and collateral
relationships, the difference of age within a generation, the sex of therelative, the sex of the speaker, the sex
of the connective relative, the distinction of blood and affinal relationship, and the condition of life of the
connecting relative. Kroeber came to the conclusion that terms of relationship reflect psychology rather than
sociology and are determined primarily by languagehence they could be utilized for sociological inferences
only with great caution.

4
In England J. F. McLennan had dismissed kin-ship terms as a mere set of mutual salutations, in the process
of defending his own evolutionary formulations for society. But Rivers, who had become interested inkinship
during the Torres Strait expedition of 18981900, where he had developed the genealogical method for
collecting accurate data on various aspects of social organization, re-turned to Morgans basic ideas as a
result of his studies of Melanesian society. In Kinship and Social Organisation (1914) he proposed that
kinship terminology is rigorously determined by social conditions and particularly by forms of marriage and
hence can be utilized to reconstruct the recent history of social institutions. These hypotheses and the
accompanying illustrations have become one starting point for the modern study of kinship systems.
[SeeMclennanandRivers.]
Lowie has been the most influential American ethnologist concerned with the study of kinship. Accepting
Rivers position that kinship terminology is related to social usages, but influenced by Kroeberas well, he
sought to test the hypotheses that had been proposed against the available ethno-graphic information. His
own comparative studies of the Plateau Shoshoneans and the Hopi Indians led him to the conclusion that the
kinship system of the latter is functionally connected with their clan system. [SeeLowie.] He summed up his
general position in a statement tha is still valid:
Relationship terms are studied by the anthropologist not merely as so many words inviting philological
analysis and comparison, but as correlates of social custom. Broadly speaking, the use of a specific kinship
designation, e.g., for the maternal as distinguished from the paternal uncle, indicates that the former receives
differential treatment at the hands of his nephews and nieces. Further, if a term of this sort embraces a
number of individuals, the probability is that the speaker is linked to all of them by the same set of mutual
duties and claims, though their intensity may vary with the closeness of the relationship. ([1929] 1959, vol.
19, p. 84)
In England Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown have been most influential figures in the development of kinship
studies. Malinowski, as a result of his study The Family Among the Australian Aborigines (1913) and his
extended field research in the Trobriand Islands, emphasized the importance of the family as the initial
situation for the development of kinship, from which attitudes and terminology could be widely extended. He
also called attention to the significance of sociological fatherhood in a matrilineal society that did not
recognize the genetic role; but he was more concerned with the function of kinship and other social
institutions in fulfilling individual needs. [SeeMalinowski.] Radcliffe-Brown, an early student of Rivers, is the
central figure in the modern study of kinshipsystems. He was the first to develop the conception of the
kinship system as composed of both terminology and patterns of social behavior and to see kinship as an
integral part of the larger social structure. As a functionalist he was concerned with the significance of
institutions in maintaining the social system, but he went further and attempted to discover basic structural
principles that were relevant to a variety of different terminological groupings and social usages.
[SeeRadcliffe-Brown.]
By the end of the 1920s the preliminary classification of kinship terminologies was well underway. Morgans
twofold classification was remodeled by Rivers, and Gifford (1922) had utilized Kroebers categories for the
classification of Californian Indian terminologies. Spiers classification (1925) of North American Indian
terminologies into eight empirical types, based on the patterns of grouping for cross-cousins, was particularly
influential. Lowie (1929) proposed a world-wide classification into four major types, based on the treatment of
relatives in the parental generation. These were soon followed by Radcliffe-Browns classification(1931) of
Australian social systems into two main types, in each of which kinship, preferential marriage, and clan
groupings were systematically interrelated.
During the following decade a number of field studies were carried out by students of Malinowski and
Radcliffe-Brown in which kinship received more adequate treatment. Firths studies of the Tikopia (1936),
Warners on the Murngin (1930), Evans-Pritchardson the Nuer (1951), Fortes on the Tallensi (1949), Taxs
on the Fox (1937), Hallowells on the Ojibwa (1937), Eggans on the Plains and Pueblo Indian groups
([1937b] 1962, pp. 3595; 1950), and Spoehrs studies of the southeastern Indian tribes (1941; 1942; 1944)
are among those researches that have contributed to the development and modification of the structuralfunctional approach.
The clearest statement of this approach is found in Radcliffe-Browns Introduction toAfrican Systems of
Kinship and Marriage (1950), in which he was concerned with the general comparative and theoretical study
of kinship organization as an arrangement which enables persons to cooperate with one another in an
orderly social life. In this discussion he compared and contrasted the cognatic system of the early Teutonic
peoples with the agnatic lineage systems of ancient Rome and many modern African tribes and indicated the

5
relevance of the principles of the unity of the sibling group and the unity and solidarity of the lineage for
various aspects of social life. Here he was particularly concerned with the significance of unilineal descent in
bringing about corporate kin groups that continue beyond the life of individual members and may control
resources, exact vengeance, regu-late marriage, and engage in ritual. He saw marriage as essentially a
rearrangement of social structure and discussed in detail the significance of marriage in various African
societies. For a world-wide classification of kinship systems heproposed four types: father-right, mother-right,
cognatic systems, and double lineage systems, each of which has a number of varieties.

Current development of kinship studies

In the modern period there have been a number of new directions in the study of kinship which involve both
method and theory. Some of these include cross-cultural comparisons involving statistical and correlational
techniques; others involve linguistic analyses building on Kroebers earlier categories or utilizing formal
analyses; still others utilize models of various types, some derived from linguistics and others from
mathematics. These studies have stimulated a great amount of new research and promise to broaden our
knowledge of kinship phenomena in various directions.
Of particular significance is Murdocks cross-cultural study of family and kinship organization in about 250
societies throughout the world, presented inSocial Structure (1949). Utilizing the postulational method and
statistical analysis he found that kinship terminologies are primarily determined by such sociological factor as
descent and residence, with marriage rules of lesser importance. He then established six types of kinship
terminology, based in part on Spiers earlier classification, and combined these with rules of descent and
residence to give 11 major types of social organization. A proposed order of social change, beginning with
changes in the residence pattern, was then tested against the evidence from linguistic reconstructions and
other data and was found highly reliable. It seems clear, Murdock wrote, that the elements of social
organization, in their permutations and combinations, conform to natural laws of their own with an exactitude
scarcely less striking than that which characterizes the permutations and combinations of atoms in chemistry
or genes in biology (1949, p. 183).
Murdocks study represents a notable advance in the application of social science methodologies to the
study of social organization, but there has also been considerable criticism of the sampling involved, the
statistical techniques used, and the data selected for analysis. He responded with the more adequate World
Ethnographic Sample (1957) and with a revised classification (1959, pp. 135140) of five major types of
social organization, based primarily on descent and residence patterns. He also modified his assumptions
about the primary role of residence in bringing about social change.
The contributions of Lvi-Strauss to the study of kinship systems are of a different character, and in Les
structures elementaires de la parente (1949) andStructural Anthropology (1958) he presents some highly
original views on the nature of social structure in general and kinship in particular. Social structure, for LeviStrauss, is in itself concerned not with the empirical reality of social relations but with models which give rise
to them, and he discusses the relevance of mechanical models (those on the same scale as the phenomena)
and statistical models (where the elements ofthe model are on a different scale) for various problems,
particularly those of communication. With regard to kinship he views the terminology and the system of
attitudes as representing quite different orders of reality: The modalities of behavior between relatives
express to some extent the terminological classification, and they provide at the same time a means of
overcoming difficulties and contradictions resulting from this classification ([1958] 1963, p. 310), a dialectic
which is responsible for change in both systems. Levi-Strauss also proposes a some-different unit for kinship
studies fromthe elementary family, which is favored by Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Murdock, and others. He
believes the relationship between brothers-in-law is the axis around which kinship structure is built ([1958]
1963, p. 46) and thus adds the wifes brother to the family unit. All kinship structures are constructed on this
kinship atom, primarily by the organization of a series of oppositions between attitudes of familiarity and
reserve. The resulting kinship system does not consist in the objective ties of descent or consanguinity
between individuals. It exists only in human consciousness; it is an arbitrary system of representations, not
the spontaneous development of a real situation(ibid., p. 50).
The principle of reciprocity, as manifested in various forms of exchange in social life, is central to LeviStrausss view of social institutions. Kinship in human society is established and perpetuated through specific
forms of marriage, and marriage as a form of exchange involves the circulation of women. He is, therefore,
particularly concerned with what he calls elementary structures, or those characterized by preferential
marriage with a particular category of kin, usually a cross-cousin. In this respect, Levi-Strauss has
attempted the analysis of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage systems, which are found in Australia and in

6
southeastern and eastern Asia as well as in a few other regions, and he sees the resulting dual structure of
wife-giving and wife-receiving groups reflected in many other aspects of society and culture.
This complex and original contribution (summarized in English in de Josselin de Jong 1952) has stimulated a
number of important studies and engendered considerable controversy. Homans and Schneider, in Marriage,
Authority, and Final Causes (1955), essay an alternate explanation based on Radcliffe-Browns theory of
sentiments. Needham attacked this strongly in Structure and Sentiment ( 1962) and went on to make a
number of reformulations of what he calls prescriptive marriage systems. Leach, in Rethinking
Anthropology (1961), shows the considerable influence of Levi-Strauss, as does Dumont, whose Hierarchy
and Marriage Alliance in SouthIndian Kinship (1957) emphasizes the importance of treating certain
categories of relatives as affinal rather than consanguineal. [SeeMarriage, articles onComparative
AnalysiandMarriage Alliance.]
In recent years a number of anthropologists and linguists have returned to Kroebers analysis (1909) of
kinship terminologies and have developed a more sophisticated approach, called componential analysis.
The general framework for componential analysis derives from linguistic theory, and the kin-ship vocabulary
is regarded as constituting a paradigm which can be analyzed in the same manner as other paradigmatic
sets in a language. Currently Lounsbury and others are attempting to construct theories using a limited
numbe of ordered roles similar to those of generative grammar. The resulting formal account specifies (1)
a set of primitive elements and (2) a set of rules for operating on these to generate a model which represents
the empirical data (see Lounsbury1964).
Goodenough (1956) treats Kroebers categories as essentially social components, but Lounsburys (1956)
and Buchlers (1964) analyses are based upon strict genealogical reckoning and operate in terms of the
primary relations in the nuclear family and their extensions to more distant relatives. Lounsbury assumes that
the primary function of kinship terminologies is to delineate therelation of ego to the members of his
personal kindred in such a way as to express some socially and legally important aspect of each of these
relationships (1964, p. 382). Friedrich, in Semantic Structure and Social Structure: An Instance from
Russian, is concerned with seeing their interrelationships: The semantic network symbolizes and is
generated by the social network. Covariation between both net-works is significant because it can lead to yet
more general inferences about native concepts (1964, p. 132). And H. C. Conklin, in Ethnogenealogical
Method, illustrates the steps which may be taken from ethnographic descriptionto final analysis:
The sequence I have followed has led us from specific-to-general-to-abstract-to-correlational substatements
of Hanunoo ethnography. We have moved from individuals occupying established genealogical positions in a
well-recognized kin net, to the examination of types of kin classes, to the analysis and articulation of the
defining features, or significata, which underlie the whole category system; and finally to a brief consideration
of one set of significant nonterminological correlates of the more highly structured parts of this system.
(1964, p. 50)
In this procedure he finds that the natives own model of their system is an important part of the data.
The utilization of mathematical models for the elucidation of kinship structures has had a long history,
beginning with Galton (1889) and continuing with Weils appendix (1949) to Lvi-Strausss monograph and,
most recently, H. C. Whites application of matrix algebra (1963). White is particularly concerned with
prescriptive marriage systems, such as the Kariera, Arunta, Murngin, and Purum, but it remains to be
demonstrated whether the logical manipulation of kinship categories and marriage rules adds greatly to
ourunderstanding of kinship systems. [SeeComponential Analysis.]

Comparative studies
The comparative study of kinship systems as wholes, and in relationship to ecological and historical factors
as well as to other aspects of social structure, has had a more limited development. The initial model for
such studies was Radcliffe-Browns Social Organization of Australian Tribes (1931), which has been carried
further by African Systems of Kinship and Marriage (Radcliffe-Brown & Forde 1950). For North America,
Eggan (1955; 1966) has been concerned with the classification and interpretation of kinship systems in a
number of regions, utilizing the method of controlled comparison and attempting to study changes over time,
and P. Kirchhoff has provided a preliminary survey of the kinship systems in South America (1931; 1932).
On the basis of a detailed analysis of the Cheyenne and Arapaho kinship systems, Eggan ([1937k] 1962)
proposed a preliminary classification of the kinship systems of the Plains region of North America into two
major types: (1) a generational type and (2) a lineage type. The tribes of the High Plains, who

7
wereorganized in terms of bi-lateral bands composing a camp circle and lived as seminomadic hunters, were
with one exception also organized in terms of a wide-ranging classificatory kinship system, in which
generation and sex were emphasized. The tribes of the Prairie Plains to the east, on the other hand, were
organized in terms of unilineal descent and lived in permanent villages, from which they went on periodic
buffalo hunts; but they depended on horti-culture for their basic subsistence. Their kinship systems were also
classificatory, in that lineal and collateral relatives were merged in the terminology, but they utilized the
lineageprinciple to provide a wide extension to the system. There were two sub-types: (a) the Omaha
system, associated with patrilineal descent, and (b) the Crow system, associated with matrilineal descent.
A comparison of these two major types indicated that each represented an adjustment to the eco-logical and
social conditions of their respective regions and that the generational systems of the High Plains were
based on the relationship of brothers, which was functionally of great importance in Plains life; whereas the
Prairie Plains tribes utilized the lineage principle to provide greater stability and continuity over time. By
examining the historical backgrounds of the High Plains tribes it became evident that tribes coming into the
Plains with different social systems ended up with similar systems. The Crow Indians are a test case. They
split off from the Hidatsa several hundred years ago and gave up their village-dwelling, agricultural life in
North Dakota for the seminomadic life of the High Plains. Their social system and kinship organization are
intermediate, partaking of both types. It seems probable that the conditions of life in the High Plains favored
a more amorphous and mobile type of social organization, which could vary to meet changing ecological and
social conditions. As Prairie Plains peoples moved out onto the High Plains to take advantage of the greater
efficiency of the horse in hunting buffalo, they modified their kinship systems in the direction of a
generational type.
North and east of the Great Lakes, the Algonkian-speaking peoples have been shown by Hallowell (1937) to
have had kinship systems basedon cross-cousin marriage, and he has proposed that the con-temporary
variants are intelligible as a result of modifications resulting from acculturative processes and local
conditions. Eggan (1955) has extended this hypothesis to northern Algonkian groups moving into the Plains
region and to the Dakota groups. The central Algonkian tribes have been shown by Callender (1962) to have
shifted from an earlier kinship system based on cross-cousin marriage to a lineage-based system of the
Omaha type, as these tribes moved southward into the Prairie Plains and expanded in population with the
adoption of horti-culture.
The Omaha and Crow subtypes of kinship systems are not limited to North America but are seen there in
their most typical form. The Omaha systems are generally associated with patrilineal line-ages or clans, and
often with a dual division of the society, while the Crow systems are associated with matrilineal lineages or
clans. In either casethe essential feature is that the lineage or clan is treated as a unit for kinship purposes,
an individual considering all his kinsmen through the mother or father as of the same kind. This utilization of
de-scent groups for kinship extensions results in both a wide range and a continuity to the social system.
In the southeastern region of North America, where all the major tribes were organized in terms of a Crowtype kinship system, preliminary studies of the Choctaw terminology collected for Morgan suggestedto
Eggan (1937a) that changes due to acculturation has been underwayin all of the south-eastern tribes up to
1860 and that the degree of change in kinship terminology was related to the degree and type of
acculturative pressures. A field study of the modern descendants by Spoehr (1941; 1942; 1944; 1947) not
only confirmed these hypotheses but provided demonstrations of the processes by which the Crow type
systems shifted to a generational pattern over the period of a century of acculturation.
In the southwestern region the Western Pueblos have all been foundto have a simple specialized type of
social structure based on matrilineal line-ages and clans and a Crow type of kinship system. The Eastern
Pueblos, however, though participating fully in the general Pueblo culture patterns, have a quite different
social structure, based ona dual organization and a bilateral nonclassificatory kin-ship system which
emphasizes generation and relative age (Eggan 1950). A number of hypotheses have been advanced to
account for this major difference in a single culture type. Here, Doziers (1954) study of the Hopi-Tewa, a
group of Eastern Tewa who migrated to the Hopi region around A.D. 1700 and who have rearranged their
kinship system to conform to the Hopi model, analyzes an important instance of acculturation between Indian
groups. The southern Athabaskan groups, made up of the Navajo and the various Apache tribes, show a
furtherseries of changes in kinship, not only from their northern relatives in Canada but from one another as
well.

8
These brief summaries can only suggest the kinds of comparative regional studies of kinship systems which
have been developed on the basis of structural-functional assumptions, with the added controls of
ethnohistory, linguistic reconstruction, and ecological factors. Along with them have been such studies as
Bruners (19551956) on the actual processes of change in Mandan-Hidatsa kinship terminology under
contemporary reservation conditions, where certain of the factors affecting choice of Indian or Euro-American
kin-ship models have been clarified.
A different type of comparative study is exemplified by Schneider and Coughs Matrilineal Kinship (1961),
which grew out of a cooperative Social Science Research Council summer seminar organized by Schneider,
with the additional participation of Colson, Aberle, Fathauer, Basehart, and Sahlins. The distinctive features
of matrilineal descent groups are first stated in theoretical terms and in contrast to their patrilineal
counterparts. They are then examined against nine matrilineal systems which are presented in detail, and
more broadly, against a larger number of cases available from Murdocks World Ethnographic Sample
(1957). Here, with descent held as a constant, the variations in group structure, residence, kinship, and
marriage are examined in terms of structural theory, cultural ecology, and evolutionary development. Of
particular significance for kinship theory is the discussion of the strength of the brother-sister relationship in
matrilineal societies as against the husband-wife bond, and its manifold effects on the kinship structure,
especially with regard to the tensions between a man and the matrilineal descent group over control of his
wife and children, which had earlier been analyzed by Richards (1950). The considerable variety of types of
kinship structures associated with matrilineal descent (and the cor-responding variety associated with
patrilineal and cognatic descent) indicate problems for future research.

Future developments
Kinship theory is set in the broader framework of social and cultural anthropology, as is indicated in the
article on culture, where Singer discusses the structural versus the cultural analysis of kinshipsystems in
terms of the controversies between Kroeber and Radcliffe-Brown. [SeeCULTURE.] In the perspective of
modern kinship studies the position of Radcliffe-Brown has been the more productive, and Kroeber has
partly modified his original position : As part of language, kin term systems reflect unconscious logic and
conceptualpatterning as well as social institutions ([19011951] 1952, p. 172). The current interest of
linguists in the componential analysis of kin term systems has clarified certain aspects of terminology but at
the expense of rejecting the advances made by treating kinship as a social system. One promising move in
this direction would be to include social components, such as locality and lineage grouping, along with those
of generation, relative age, sex, and so on (see Leach 1961; Friedrich 1964). Levi-Strauss has been
impressed with th relevance of structural linguistics to the study of kinship:
Like phonemes, kinship terms are elements of meaning: like phonemes they acquire meaning only if they are
integrated systems. Kinship systems, like phonemic systems, are built by the mind on the level of
unconscious thought. Finally, the recurrence of kin-ship patterns, marriage rules, similar prescribed attitudes
between certain types of relatives, and so forth, in scattered regions of the globe and fundamentally different
societies, leads us to believe that, in the case of kinship as well as linguistics, the observable phenomena
result from the action of laws which are general but implicit. ([1958] 1963, p. 34)
But granted that the principles of duality and of reciprocity may be basic, their relevance to many social
systems has not yet been demonstrated. For Radcliffe-Brown the recurrence of particular features in the
diversity of kinship systems throughout the world was evidenceof a limited number of general structural
principles, such as the equivalence of siblings and lineage solidarity, which were combined in varying ways.
But if Kroebers reformulation is to be more than a compromise, it will be important to relate systematically
the linguistic, cognitive, and sociological aspects of kinship in order to develop a more comprehensive theory.
Thus, the formal rules by which Lounsbury generates Crow- and Omaha-type terminological systems are
related to Radcliffe-Browns sociological principles, as Lounsbury notes (1964, p. 357). And the principle of
duality may find more general expression in the relations of ego to alter and in the attitudes of respect and
familiarity than in the more specific matrimonial arrangements and dual organizations of society.
The emphasis on descent systems with reference to kinship has been balanced in recent years by a greater
concern with bilateral or cognatic systems, but the precise relationships between these two types are not yet
clear. Both lineage-based and bi-lateral kinship systems are faced with similar problems but solve them in
somewhat different ways. The historical changes noted above suggest that greater efficiency in adaptation to
particular ecological situations may be an important factor. Whether there are broad evolutionary changes is
not yet clear. The early formulations of Morgan have been discredited but no large-scale evolutionary

9
sequence with regard to kinship systems has been developed to take their place. L. A. White (1939, pp. 569
570) has proposed a more limited development to account for the Iroquois-Dakota kinship terminology in
relation to the Omaha and Crow types: When the clan system is young and weak the kinship system will be
of the Dakota-Iroquois type, regardless of the sex in which descent is reckoned. As the clan system
develops, however, and comes to exert its influence more and more upon the social life of the tribe, the
Dakota-Iroquois terminology will be transformed into the Crow type in a matrilineal society and into the
Omaha type in a patrilineal society. Murdocks study (1949) lends considerable statistical support to this
view. It is clear, however, that the Dakota type of kinship system can develop in association with cross-cousin
marriage without the presence of any clan organization (Eggan 1955). Where we find the classic Omaha and
Crow kinship systems they are generally associated with well-developed corporate patrilineal and
matrilineal groups, respectively, but not all societies with well-developed corporate lineage groups have
Omaha or Crow kin-ship systems. For North America there is some evidence for a cyclical oscillation
between kinship systems based on a generational principle of organization and those based on a lineage
principle. These are thetwo major axes for the classification of kin, and Murdock has provided a theoretical
formulation of change in social structures to be tested against the empirical evidence. Here, studies of the
type made by Krader (1963) with regard to the Turkic and Mongol kinship systems and by Friedrich (1963)
with regard to the historical development of the Russian kinship system will be particularly important.
Studies of Euro-American kinship systems have so far been concerned primarily with terminological patterns
and their historical development. However, Schneider and Firth are engaged in a large-scale comparative
study of kinship in Chicago and London, respectively, which should both yield new and important results and
bring our knowledge of kin-ship systems in contemporary industrial society up to the level of those of
nonliterate groups.
Our knowledge of affinal kinshipthe relationships established through the marriage tiehas been seriously
neglected in most studies of kinship systems. Some societies, such as the Ifugao inthe northern Philippines,
reduce the significance of the affinal tiealmost to the vanishing point, in contrast to consanguineal
relationships; others build much of their social structure on the relationshipsbetween spouses. The
contributions of Levi-Strauss, Dumont, and Needham to our understanding of affinity in cases of preferential
or prescriptive cross-cousin marriage, where affinal terminology is disguisedin the consanguineal system,
have been mentioned. But there is as ye no comprehensive classification of affinal kinship terminology, nor
any general theory of the nature of affinity, although Aginsky (1935) long ago called attention to the
importance of the problem. Friedrich(see Goodenough 1964, pp. 131166) has provided a beginning with his
detailed analysis of the Russian affinal system.
We can look forward to a continued flow of empirical data on kinship and to a continuing dialogue between
studies utilizing analytic variables and statistical methods, on the one hand, and intensive studies of a more
limited range but concerned with kinship systems as wholes and in their ecological and historical contexts,
on the other. Outof this dialectic should come more adequate concepts and classifications, as well as a
greater under-standing of the phenomena of kinship and the processes relevant to its development. At a
more general level, such studies also furnish a body of data to clarify the relations between culture, as a set
of ideas and symbols, and social structure,as a system of social interaction. Kinship organizes social
relationsin terms of cultural patterns.
Fred Eggan
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aginsky, B. 1935 The Mechanics of Kinship. American Anthropologist New Series 37:450457.
Beattie, J. H. M. 1964 Kinship and Social Anthropology. Man 64:101104.
British Association for theadvancement ofscience(1874) 1954 Notes and Queries on Anthropology. 6th ed.,
rev. London: Routledge.
Bruner, Edward M. 19551956 Two Processes of Change in Mandan-Hidatsa Kinship Terminology. American
Anthropologist New Series 57:840850; 58: 554556.
Bruner, Edward M. 1956 Primary Group Experience and the Processes of Acculturation. American
Anthropologist New Series 58:605623.
Buckler, I. R. 1964 Measuring the Development of Kinship Terminologies: Scalogram and Transformational
Accounts of Crow-type Systems. American Anthropologist New Series 66:765788.

10
Callender, Charles 1962 Social Organization of the Central Algonkian Indians. Milwaukee Public Museum
Publications in Anthropology, No. 7. Milwaukee, Wis.: The Museum.
Conklin, Harold C. 1964 Ethnogenealogical Method. Pages 2555 in Ward H. Goodenough
(editor),Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Dozier, Edward P. 1954 The Hopi-Tewa of Arizona. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Dumont, Louis 1957 Hierarchy and Marriage Alliance in South Indian Kinship. London: Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.
EGGAN, FRED 1937a Historical Changes in the Choctaw Kinship System. American Anthropologist New
Series 39:3452.
Eggan, Fred (1937b) 1962 The Cheyenne and Arapaho Kinship System. Pages 3595 in Social
Anthropology of North American Tribes. 2d ed., enl. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Eggan, Fred 1950 Social Organization of the WesternPueblos. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Eggan, Fred (1955) 1962 Social Anthropology: Methods and Results. Pages 485551 in Social Anthropology
of North American Tribes. 2d ed., enl. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Eggan, Fred 1960 Lewis H. Morgan in Kinship Perspective. Pages 179201 in Gertrude E. Dole and Robert
L. Carneiro (editors), Essays in the Science of Culture, in Honor of Leslie A. White. New York: Crowell.
Eggan, Fred 1966 The American Indian: Perspectives for the Studyof Social Change. Chicago: Aldine.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1951 Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer. Oxford Univ. Press.
Firth, Raymond W. 1930 Marriage and the Classifica-tory System of Relationship. Journal of the
RoyalAnthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland60:235268.
Firth, Raymond W. (1936) 1957 We, the Tikopia: A Sociological Study of Kinship in Primitive Polynesia.2d
ed. London: Allen & Unwin. A paperback edition was published in 1963 by Beacon.
Fortes, Meyer 1949 The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi: The Second Part of an Analysis of the Social
Structure of a Trans-Volta Tribe. Oxford Univ. Press.
Freeman, J. D. 1961 On the Concept of theKindred. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 91:192220.
Friedrich, Paul 1963 An Evolutionary Sketch of Rus-sian Kinship. American Ethnological
Society,Proceedings [1962]: 126.
Friedrich, Paul 1964 Semantic Structure and Social Structure: An Instance From Russian. Pages 131166 in
Ward H. Goodenough (editor), Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter
Murdoch. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Galton, F. 1889 Note on Australian Marriage Systems. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 19:7072.
Gifford, Edward W. 1922 California Kinship Terminologies. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Goodenough, Ward H. 1956 Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning. Language 32:195216.
Goodenough, Ward H. (editor) 1964 Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter
Murdoch. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1949 The Logical Analysis of Kinship. Philosophy of Science 16:5864.
Hallowell, A. Irving 1937 Cross-cousin Marriage in the Lake Winnipeg Area. Pages 95110 in Philadelphia
Anthropological Society, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Studies. Edited by Daniel S. Davidson. Publications of the
Philadelphia Anthropological Society, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Hassrick, Royal B. 1944 The Teton Dakota Kinship System. American Anthropologist New Series 46:338
347.
Hockett, Charles F. 1964 The Proto Central Algonquian Kinship System. Pages 239258 in Ward H.
Goodenough, Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdoch. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Homans, George C.; and Schneider, David M. 1955 Marriage, Authority, and Final Causes: A Study of
Unilateral Cross-cousin Marriage. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
Josselin DE Jong, Jan P. B. DE 1952 Levi-Strausss Theory on Kinship and Marriage. Mededelingen van het
Rijkmuseum voor Volkenkunde, No. 10. Leiden (Netherlands): Brill.
Kirchhoff, Paul 1931 Die Verwandtschaftsorganisation der Urwaldstamme Siidamerikas. Zeitschrift fur
Ethnologic 63:85193.
Kirchhoff, Paul 1932 Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen und Verwandtenheirat. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologic 64:
4171.

11
Krader, Lawrence 1963 SociaZ Organization of the MongolT urkic Pastoral Nomads. Indiana University
Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 20. The Hague: Mouton.
Kroeber, Alfred L. (19011951) 1952 The Nature of Culture. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1909 Classificatory Systems of Relationship. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
of Great Britain and Ireland 39:7784.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1917 Zuni Kin and Clan. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers,
Vol. 18, part 2. New York:The Museum.
Leach, Edmund R. 1961 Rethinking Anthropology. London School of Economics and Political Science,
Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 22. London: Athlone.
Levi-Strauss, Claude 1949 Les structures elementaires de la parente. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France. Levi-Strauss, Claude (1958) 1963 Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. First
published in French.
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1956 A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage. Language 32:158194.
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964 A Formal Account of the Crow- and Omaha-type Kinship Terminologies. Pages
351393 in Ward H. Goodenough (editor), Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George
Peter Murdoch. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lowie, Robert H. (1916) 1960 Historical and Sociological Interpretation of Kinship Terminologies. Pages 65
74 in Robert H. Lowie, Selected Papers in Anthropology. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Lowie, Robert H. 1917 Culture and Ethnology. New York: Boni & Liveright.
Lowie, Robert H. (1929) 1959 Relationship Terms. Volume 19, pages 8490 in Encyclopaedia Britannica.
14th ed. Chicago: Benton.
Lowie, Robert H. (1934) 1960 The Omaha and Crow Kinship Terminologies. Pages 100110 in Robert H.
Lowie, Selected Papers in Anthropology. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Lowie, Robert H.; and Eggan, Fred 1963 Kinship Terminology. Volume 13, pages 407409 in Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Chicago: Benton.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1913) 1963 The Family Among the Australian Aborigines: A Sociological Study. New
York: Schocken.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (19131941) 1963 Sex, Culture and Myth. London: Hart-Davis.
Malinowski, Bronislaw 1930 Parenthood: The Basis of Social Structure. Pages 113168 in Victor F. Calverton
and Samuel D. Schmalhausen (editors), The New Generation: The Intimate Problems of Modern Parents
and Children. New York: Macaulay.
Matthews, G. H. 1959 Proto-Siouan Kinship Terminology. American Anthropologist New Series 61:252278.
Morgan, Lewis H. 1871 Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. 17, Publication No. 218. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Morgan, Lewis H. (1877) 1964 Ancient Society. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Murdock, George P. 1949 Social Structure. New York: Macmillan. A paperback edition was published in
1965 by the Free Press.
Murdock, George P. 1957 World Ethnographic Sample. American Anthropologist New Series 59:664687.
Murdock, George P. 1959 Evolution in Social Organization. Pages 126143 in Anthropological Society of
Washington, Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. Washington: The Society.
Murdock, George P. (editor) 1960 Social Structure in Southeast Asia. Viking Fund Publications in
Anthropology, No. 29. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Needham, Rodney 1962 Structure and Sentiment: A Test Case in Social Anthropology. Univ. of Chicago
Press.
Parsons, Talcott 1943 The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States. American AnthropologistNew
Series 45:2238.
Pehrson, Robert N. 1954 Bilateral Kin Groupings as a Structural Type: A Preliminary Statement. Journal of
East Asiatic Studies 3:199202.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1931) 1948 The Social Organization of Australian Tribes. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1950 Introduction. Pages 185 in A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde
(editors),African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. Oxford Univ. Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952 Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses. London:
Cohen & West; Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.; and Forde, Daryll (editors) 1950 African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. Ox-ford
Univ. Press.

12
Richards, Audrey I. 1950 Some Types of Family Structure Amongst the Central Bantu. Pages 207251 in A.
R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (editors), African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. Oxford Univ. Press.
Rivers, William H. R. 1914 Kinship and Social Organisation. London School of Economics and Political
Science, Studies, No. 36. London: Constable.
Schapera, Isaac (editor) 1963 Studies in Kinship and Marriage, Dedicated to Brenda Z. Seligman ... . Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Occasional Papers, No. 16. London: The Institute.
Schmitt, Karl; and Schmitt, Iva 1952 Wichita Kin-ship: Past and Present. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Book
Exchange.
Schneider, David M. 1964 The Nature of Kinship. Man 64:180181.
Schneider, David M.; and Gough, Kathleen (editors) 1961 Matrilineal Kinship. Berkeley: Univ. of California
Press.
Service, Elman R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random
House.
Social Anthropology of North American Tribes. Edited by Fred Eggan. 2d ed., enl. (1937) 1962 Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Spier, Leslie 1925 The Distribution of Kinship Systems in North America. University of Washington
Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 2. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.
Spoehr, Alexander 1941 Camp, Clan and Kin Among the Cow Creek Seminole of Florida. Anthropological
Series, Vol. 33, No. 1. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
Spoehr, Alexander 1942 Kinship Systems of the Seminole. Anthropological Series, Vol. 33, No. 2. Chicago:
Field Museum of Natural History.
Spoehr, Alexander 1944 The Florida Seminole Camp. Anthropological Series, Vol. 33, No. 3. Chicago: Field
Museum of Natural History.
Spoehr, Alexander 1947 Changing Kinship Systems: A Study in the Acculturation of the Creeks, Cherokee
and Choctaw. Anthropological Series, Vol. 33, No. 4. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
Spoehr, Alexander 1950 Observations on the Study of Kinship. American Anthropologist New Series 52: 1
15.
Tax, Sol (1937) 1962 The Social Organization of the Fox Indians. Pages 243282 in Social Anthropology of
North American Tribes. 2d ed., enl. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Tax, Sol (1955) 1962 From Lafitau to Radcliffe-Brown: A Short History of the Study of Social Organization.
Pages 445481 in Social Anthropology of North American Tribes. 2d ed., enl. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Titiev, Mischa 1943 The Influence of Common Residence on the Unilateral Classification of
Kindred.American Anthropologist New Series 45:511530.
Wallace, Anthony F. C.; and Atkins, John 1960 TheMeaning of Kinship Terms. American Anthropologist New
Series 62:5880.
Warner, W. Lloyd 1930 Morphology and Functions of the Australian Murngin Type of Kinship. American
Anthropologist New Series 32:207256.
Weil, Andre (1949) 1963 On the Algebraic Study of Certain Types of Marriage Laws (Murngins System).
Pages 151157 in Harrison C. White, An Anatomy of Kinship: Mathematical Models for Structures of
Cumulated Roles. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. First published in French.
White, Harrison C. 1963 An Anatomy of Kinship: Mathematical Models for Structures of Cumulated Roles.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
White, Leslie A. 1939 A Problem in Kinship Terminology. AmericanAnthropologist New Series 41:566573.